U. N. R. RAO versus SMT. INDIRA GANDHI

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 17-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-4i 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
U.N.R.RAO 
v. 
SMT. INDIRA GANDW 
March 17, 1971 
[S. M. SIK.RI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 74(1) and 75(3)-House ~t People 
dissolved-If Prime Minister ceases to hold office. 
The House of the People was dissolved by the President of lndia on 
27th December 1970. 
On the question whether the respondent, whe was 
the Prime Minister before the dissolution, ceased to bold office thereafter, 
HELD : There is nothing in the Constitution and in particular in Art. 
75(3) ~·hich renders the respondent functioning as Prime Minister contrary 
to the Constitution. 
The Indian Constitution establishes a Parliamentary system of Gov-
ernment with a Cabinet. and not a Presidential form. Article 75(3) brings 
into existence responsible Government, that is, the Council of Ministers 
must enjoy the confidence of the House of the People. 
In the context, it 
can only mean that Art. 75(3) applies when the House of the People does 
not stand dissolved or prorogued, for. when it is dissolved, the Council 
of Ministers cannot naturally enjoy the confidence of the Ho.use. Rut such 
dissolution of the House does not require that the Prime Minister and 
other ministers must resign, or cease to hold office or must be dismiised 
by the President, because, Art. 74(1) is mandatory and the President can· 
not exercise his executive power withoQt the aid and advice of the Council 
of Ministers, with the Prime Minister at the head. 
[51 B-C, D-H] 
This view is also in accordance with the conventions follo~ved not 
only in the United Kingdom but in the countries following a similar system 
of responsible government. [52 D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 196 of 
1971. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 21- and 
February 5, 1971 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 
63 of 1971. 
The appellant appeared in person. 
G 
N iren De, Attorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, Ram Panjwal'i, 
H 
J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the res-
pondent. 
Niren De, Attorney General, Ram Panjwani, R. H. Dhebar 
and S 
P. Nayar, for the Union of India. 
ORDER 
The appeal is dismissed. 
No order as to costs. 
We will give 
our reasons later. 
U. N. R .. RAO v. Sl(T. INDIRA GANDHI (Sikri, C. J.) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, c. J.-This appeal by certificate is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Ma-Oras dismissing 
Writ Petition No. 63 of 1971 filed by U. N. R. Rao. appellant 
before us. In this petition the appellant had prayed that a writ 
of qua warranto be issued to the respondent, Smt. Indira Gandhi, 
and it be declared that the respondent has no constitutional autho. 
rity to hold the office of and to function as Prime Minister of 
India. 
In brief, the appellant contends that under the Constitution 
as soon as the House of the People is dissolved under art. 85(2) 
of the Constitution the Council of Ministers, 
i.e., 
the 
Prime 
Minister and other Ministers, cease to hold. office. According to 
him this follows plainly from the wording of art. 75(3), which pro. 
vidcs that "the Council of Ministers shall be collectively respon· 
sible to the House of the People". 
How can the Council of 
Ministers be responsible to the House of the People when it has 
been dissolved under art. 85(2) ? 
According to him no void in 
the carrying out of Government will be created because the Presi-
dent can exercise the Executive Power of the Union either directly 
or through officers subordinate in accordance with the Constitution 
as provided in a1t. 53(1) of the Constitution. 
In constitutional matters it· is advisable to decide only those 
points which necessarily arise for determination on the facts of the 
case. 
It seems to us that a very narrow point arises on the facts 
of the present case. The House of the People was dissolved by 
the President on 27-12-1970. 
The respondent was the Prime 
Mir.ister before the dissolution. 
Is there anything in the Consti-
tution, and in particular in art. 75(3), which renders her carrying on 
as Prime Minister contrary to the Constitution ? It was said that 
·we must interpret Art. 75(3) according to its own terms regardless 
of the conventions that prevail in the United Kingdom. 
If the 
words of an article are clear, notwithstanding any relevant con-
vention, effect will no doubt be given to the words. But it must 
be remembered
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.